Global warming scientists
Jon Slaughter
called scientists that pushed global warming? If the fix was in then
shouldn't the real scientists be pissed? After all, those guys, if it is
true, are using the name and prestige of science to scam the human race.
This is much worse than your average JSH. These people actually have phd's
and are suppose to be objective. If the emails are true then what they are
doing is not science and could potentially be very devistating(if it ends up
becoming a trend) to scientific advancement.
I see a lot of christian bashing(I'm an atheist so I'm not just saying this)
where people say that christians are hyprocrits because they do things that
are "unchristian". This mainly comes from atheists who use it to justify
there disdane for religion(but it's almost always towards christians rather
than other religious people). i.e., We have "christians" acting
non-christian which is pointed out time and again to show the hyprocisy of
christanity and as evidence why christianty is wrong(which, as mathematician
you know is a fallacious argument).
Now we have "scientists" doing unscientific like things. i.e., Scientists
are suppose to be objective. The left does not seem to follow the same
criticism. But it's a catch-22. If they criticize the scientists in the same
way as christians then it demeans science(but at least it's not
hyprocritical). If they do nothing then science is potentially ruined. Of
course the liberals won't criticize the scientists beause they were
fullfilling their agenda. They corrupted science like everything else
liberals come in contact with. (The ends justify the means)
So it is up to the true scientific community to do the critizing. Surely it
must be done? Where is the outrage? Look at all those that get on JSH? The
anlogy is, say, JSH getting an honory PHD in math then having his work being
published by some other means than objectivity and the non-mathematics
community then accepting his work as math. Would you be upset if such
events happened?
Science is suppose to keep us honest and on the right track. When people
start using it as simply a way to push an agenda with obvious contradictions
to the original meaning then it seems we are on our way down hill? I believe
we are if we don't stand up against this kinda crap... Like everything else
liberalism seems to corrupt is science next?
karl
> Should the scientific community analyze the "mathematics" behind these
> so called scientists that pushed global warming?
So you know that these people use "mathematics" not mathematics.
How?
If the fix was in then
> shouldn't the real scientists be pissed? After all, those guys, if it is
> true, are using the name and prestige of science to scam the human race.
> This is much worse than your average JSH. These people actually have
> phd's and are suppose to be objective.
And what is with you?
If the emails are true then what
> they are doing is not science and could potentially be very
> devistating(if it ends up becoming a trend) to scientific advancement.
A gentleman does not read other gentlemen's mail.
Ciao
Karl
Bacle
Who has argued this.?. Why would anyone take such argument seriously.?.
And problems with arguments belong to the area of logic, not mathematics. If you disagree, do tell what
result/theorem in mathematics would you use to find
fault with this argument.
>
> Now we have "scientists" doing unscientific like
> things. i.e., Scientists
> are suppose to be objective. The left does not seem
> to follow the same
> criticism.
Wow. You are grouping millions of people in with that unclear statement. What are people on the left supposed to be doing that they are not doing according to you.?
But it's a catch-22. If they criticize the
> scientists in the same
> way as christians then it demeans science(but at
> least it's not
> hyprocritical). If they do nothing then science is
> potentially ruined. Of
> course the liberals won't criticize the scientists
> beause they were
> fullfilling their agenda. They corrupted science like
> everything else
> liberals come in contact with. (The ends justify the
> means)
Yes. We should have left it to the Bush people who did
>
>
> So it is up to the true scientific community to do
> the critizing. Surely it
> must be done? Where is the outrage? Look at all those
> that get on JSH? The
> anlogy is, say, JSH getting an honory PHD in math
> then having his work being
> published by some other means than objectivity and
> the non-mathematics
> community then accepting his work as math. Would you
> be upset if such
> events happened?
>
> Science is suppose to keep us honest and on the right
> track. When people
> start using it as simply a way to push an agenda with
> obvious contradictions
> to the original meaning then it seems we are on our
> way down hill? I believe
> we are if we don't stand up against this kinda
> crap... Like everything else
> liberalism seems to corrupt is science next?
>
>
>
1)Your arguments will be taken more seriously if you spell correctly. I don't think this is an empty , meaningless convention. A misspelled word here-and-there is fine, but you have way more than that. Misspelling makes you seem careless and makes it seem like you have not prepared your argument carefully. Misspelling also makes it seem like you do not read non-mathematical material often.
2)Your arguments are very poorly crafted. You start with a hypothetical statement, pile up a bunch of other hypotheticals on top of it from which you reach a conclusion , which you state with a high degree of certainty. How can you be so certain about your conclusion when you build up on so many hypotheticals.?
3)Avoid the fallacy of criticizing "the Liberals", or "the Liberal position". There is no such thing. There is, as with any other movement, a wide range of views and positions. This is an obvious red herring.
Avoid loaded statements "...like everything else they (Liberals) seem to corrupt....". This is not a universally accepted statement, so present an argument for it or drop it.
4)Stay away from Faux news for a few weeks and read serious books/papers on both sides of the issue until you have a position you are able to support and you do not need to fill up your argument with speculations.
BURT
regulating but what man is doing probably will end the ice ages. Man
gets to live in an eternal spring not a winter.
Mitch Raemsch
spudnik
is a vegetable, with a higher concentration of lycopene
than a store-bought tomato -- and is the original Space Food,
I guess. also,
Reagan was also correct about trees, making pollution,
namely turpenes, which are implicated in the creation
of ozone at groundlevel -- not that
that is really a bad thing! (the funny datum is,
those days where "advisories" are issued, based upon
the canonical indicator of "smog" being ozone, happen
to be the hottest, humidest days; so, run in the morning!
in the latter regard, with regard to the stratosphere,
there is really no such a thing as a "hole" in the ozone;
these are all patterns of weather, of which the polar ones
are merely the largest annual examples. (in '78,
the TOMS polar-orbiter gave the first pictures
of this -- "the sky is glowing!") now,
what does this have to do with the misnomer/nonsequiter/
oxymoron of "global" warming? (as far as I have seen,
there are *no* datasets that show this;
merely cimputerized simulacra & very selective reporting.)
as for the Kyoto Protocol, Dubya, the MBA, certainly would
have signed it, if he'd not been misinformed,
that it was not just cap'n'trade;
these guys are at the upper echelon of brainwashing
about the ideals of "free trade, free beer, free dumb." and,
it is no different in effect than the cap'ntrade
that HW brought in in '91;
where is the news of the uncontroversial effects of this -- but
is it really any good, for some thing as fundamental
as breathing, literally?
re HW: http://tarpley.net/bush17.htm -- 600pp w/ footnotes!
> Yes. We should have left it to the Bush people who did
thus:
I know the proper phrase,
"beating a dead cat" -- namely,
Schroedinger's laughing-at-you cat ... or with you?
every sequence of "n" tosses of a coin is just as likely
as any other, namely (1/2)^n; however,
the obsessive-repulsive gamblers do not know the odds
for even two tosses, apparently.... that thickly-beveled edge!
--l'Ouvre: http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html;
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ -- "relativistic Moon model."
STOP the 2ND "cap & trade" RIP-OFF (per 1991's for NOx and SOtwo;
how wonderful was that, googolmedia?);
install a *tariff* on imported oil -- "'republicans' R Them!"